Jon
Hall, an inmate on death row in the Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution, filed a pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1), which has
been transferred to the undersigned for initial review as a
case related to Hugueley v. Parker, No.
3:19-cv-00598. Because the plaintiff is a pro se
inmate who has been permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
requires the court to conduct an initial review of his
complaint and determine whether it or any part of it is
facially frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)
and 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

In
reviewing the complaint to determine whether it states a
plausible claim, “a district court must (1) view the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
(2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.”
Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d
478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v.
Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted)). The plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to
vindicate alleged violations of his federal constitutional
rights. Section 1983 confers a private federal right of
action against any person who, acting under color of state
law, deprives an individual of any right, privilege or
immunity secured by the Constitution or federal laws.
Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th
Cir. 2012). Thus, to state a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff
must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured
by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2)
that “the deprivation was caused by a person acting
under color of state law.” Tahfs v. Proctor,
316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

The
plaintiff's primary complaint is that he has been held in
solitary confinement within death row for more than five
years without a legitimate penological reason or due process.
He alleges that his prolonged confinement under current
conditions is causing or exacerbating psychological and
physical harm to him and that the defendants are being
deliberately indifferent to that harm. He seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief as well as unspecified money damages
and attorney fees. He also asks that the court appoint
counsel to represent him and file a supplemental or amended
complaint.

An
inmate states a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment
by alleging conditions of confinement that “involve the
wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain” or
“pain without any penological purpose, ” or
conditions that “deprive inmates of the minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities.”
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
Prisoners may also state an Eighth Amendment claim by
alleging that prison officials have been deliberately
indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to an
inmate. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 843 (1994).
And finally, an inmate's treatment gives rise to a
constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment when it “imposes atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents
of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 484 (1995). Taking the plaintiff's allegations as
true for the purpose of this screening, the court finds that
he has suggested serious and potentially viable claims for
relief under all three standards. See,
e.g., DuPonte v. Wall, 288 F.Supp.3d 504,
513 (D.R.I. 2018) (observing the known “profound impact
that solitary confinement can have on an individual's
mental and physical health” and concluding that inmate
stated conditions-of-confinement, deliberate indifference,
and due process claims in connection with his year-long
segregation).

However,
the plaintiff's allegations of relevant fact are often
vague and fail to identify who is personally responsible for
his continued solitary confinement or how his monthly reviews
are, as he alleges, “meaningless.” His
allegations about his solitary confinement claim are also
intermingled with extraneous information about alleged
injustices that are not actionable under Section 1983,
including the mistreatment of other inmates, the misuse of
presidential war powers, a movie plot, the invalidity of the
plaintiff's conviction and sentence, the termination of
the plaintiff's parental rights, a
“syndicate” of “illuminati Masons”
running the prison, and a host of allegations involving
individuals who are not named as defendants to this lawsuit.
(See, e.g., Id. at 11, 18, 25, 31, 34-38.)
Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff's
complaint fails to comply with the requirement of Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set forth “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2),
and process SHALL NOT issue on this
complaint.

Because
of the seriousness of the potentially viable claims
identified above, however, and the court's expectation
that developing the proof to support those claims is likely
beyond the abilities of an inmate confined to isolation on
death row, the court GRANTS the
plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. See
Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993)
(appointment in civil cases warranted by “exceptional
circumstances” in consideration of the plaintiff's
ability to represent himself and the complexity of the case).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to retain
counsel for the plaintiff from the civil appointment panel,
giving the first option to attorney Paul Davidson in light of
his on-going handling of the related case.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Appointed
counsel MUST, within 30 days of appointment,
file an amended complaint in this case, which is to
completely supersede the plaintiffs original complaint and
not incorporate or reference it in any way. In drafting the
amended complaint, counsel should be mindful of the
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.